Comparing the AMT and Revell 1940 Ford Coupes.

[Lovefordgalaxie]

Decided to do a simple comparo between the AMT and Revell offerings on 1940 Ford coupes. 

Both kits were built out of the box. The only additions are a chrome tail pipe on the Revell, an actual tail pipe on the AMT, and custom decals for the trunk emblems, licence plates, and a correct Standard decal for the Revell kit, that comes with the wrong one. 

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

1940 Ford Comparo. Revell X AMT by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

 

[KWT]

I kinda like them both... 

I know the AMT is considered awesome... But which one did you prefer?

[Lovefordgalaxie]

I kinda like them both... 

I know the AMT is considered awesome... But which one did you prefer?

AMT

[unclescott58]

I was wondering/hoping you would do a comparison of these two kits. I'm actually very impressed with the AMT kit, considering it was designed nearing 60 years now. I think it first saw light in 1959, or 1960? I figured the newer Revell kit would be a better and more correct kit detail wise. It is. But, not by much. Kudos to the engineers and designers who did the AMT back in the day. They did a good job. 

[mr moto]

I just built an AMT '40 Ford coupe and a sedan shortly before that and I was very impressed by both. The part count is low but the look, fit, etc. is spot on. Engine detail seems crude but once again the final product comes across as looking just right. Its one of the very earliest AMT Trophy Series kits and definitely was tooled in 1959 or 1960 (1960 I believe).

[Lovefordgalaxie]

5 hours ago, unclescott58 said:

I was wondering/hoping you would do a comparison of these two kits. I'm actually very impressed with the AMT kit, considering it was designed nearing 60 years now. I think it first saw light in 1959, or 1960? I figured the newer Revell kit would be a better and more correct kit detail wise. It is. But, not by much. Kudos to the engineers and designers who did the AMT back in the day. They did a good job. 

I'm impressed with it too. In total, I built 03 AMT Coupes, a Tudor, and a Sedan delivery. All are real nice kits, and the major flaw I found was on the Delivery that lacks the correct tailight. The super modern new tool Revell has the wrong interior. Yes AMT did GREAT!!!

 

1 hour ago, mr moto said:

I just built an AMT '40 Ford coupe and a sedan shortly before that and I was very impressed by both. The part count is low but the look, fit, etc. is spot on. Engine detail seems crude but once again the final product comes across as looking just right. Its one of the very earliest AMT Trophy Series kits and definitely was tooled in 1959 or 1960 (1960 I believe).

Agreed.

[Bernard Kron]

What makes this comparison so valuable is that in both cases there should be no questions as to the quality of the build. Whatever each of these kits has to offer, Tulio has gotten the absolute maximum out of it. The result is that, as Mr. Moto has pointed out, the AMT's reputation for "just looking right" despite its simplicity, shows that nearly 60 years ago (good grief!) the designers at AMT new what was needed to put the "look" of the model across. The proof is in these side by side shots. In particular the engine compartment shots show that, while there may be fewer discreet parts under the hood of the AMT model, in the hands of a skilled and knowledgeable modeler, the result can be every bit as convincing. Speaking personally, I prefer the AMT because it goes together so well without the fidliness of the Revell kit. On the other hand all those finely modeled sub-assemblies in the Revell kit are a delight to behold and a testament to the superb job Revell did with this kit.

[DustyMojave]

I agree that the AMT holds up surprisingly well against the Revell. I also feel that Tulio has done an excellent job of building and comparing these 2 kits.

Thank you Tulio for this. I plan to build another 40 Coupe and another Sedan Delivery and will probably be building the Revell Coupe this time and for the Sedan Delivery I think I'll use the Revell chassis under the AMT body shell. The better front axle and the separate exhaust are the primary reasons to choose the Revell chassis for my builds as I will be building hot rods.

I've attached a picture my dad took in the late 50s at El Mirage Dry Lake of his buddy Tom Beatty's belly tank and his 40 Sedan Delivery push vehicle. Note the 40 Deluxe grille and the painted Standard headlight bezels. It usually had the hood on it covering the blown Olds engine.

[unclescott58]

Tulio, I notice that the Standard coupe only has one taillight. I know it correct. But, I don't like the looks of it. I'm assuming that the right taillight was an option on the real car. Like in previous years. When I build my Revell kit, I will be doing a couple things that I know will not be correct. I plan on keeping the headlamp rims and the grille chrome. Not correctly painting them over. Plus I'll be adding the second taillight. It's my understanding the Revell kit does include the extra taillight if one wants to use it. 

[Bob Ellis]

2 hours ago, unclescott58 said:

Tulio, I notice that the Standard coupe only has one taillight. I know it correct. But, I don't like the looks of it. I'm assuming that the right taillight was an option on the real car. Like in previous years. When I build my Revell kit, I will be doing a couple things that I know will not be correct. I plan on keeping the headlamp rims and the grille chrome. Not correctly painting them over. Plus I'll be adding the second taillight. It's my understanding the Revell kit does include the extra taillight if one wants to use it. 

Even in the '70s, Massachusetts required hand signals for the driving test. I guess a remnant of one tail light.

[Bob Ellis]

So which kit is better Revell or AMT. Also, AMT needs more work to be an accurate '39 despite what the sedan kit says.

[TooOld]

Both look very well done but the AMT wins hands down . 

[espo]

These are both outstanding builds and show the differences between Revell and AMT. What I have always wondered and never got around to doing was to use the AMT Sedan fenders from the kit that offered the option of building a '39 or a '40 sedan and build a '39 Deluxe coupe out of the AMT '40 Deluxe Coupe kit.

[Lovefordgalaxie]

12 hours ago, Bernard Kron said:

What makes this comparison so valuable is that in both cases there should be no questions as to the quality of the build. Whatever each of these kits has to offer, Tulio has gotten the absolute maximum out of it. The result is that, as Mr. Moto has pointed out, the AMT's reputation for "just looking right" despite its simplicity, shows that nearly 60 years ago (good grief!) the designers at AMT new what was needed to put the "look" of the model across. The proof is in these side by side shots. In particular the engine compartment shots show that, while there may be fewer discreet parts under the hood of the AMT model, in the hands of a skilled and knowledgeable modeler, the result can be every bit as convincing. Speaking personally, I prefer the AMT because it goes together so well without the fidliness of the Revell kit. On the other hand all those finely modeled sub-assemblies in the Revell kit are a delight to behold and a testament to the superb job Revell did with this kit.

I agree 100% Th AMT looks as nice as a new and fancy tool, and goes together like a dream. Not only that, but the completed model is a LOT stronger than the Revell kit, and it has the correct interior, something Revell doesn't. 

 

4 hours ago, unclescott58 said:

Tulio, I notice that the Standard coupe only has one taillight. I know it correct. But, I don't like the looks of it. I'm assuming that the right taillight was an option on the real car. Like in previous years. When I build my Revell kit, I will be doing a couple things that I know will not be correct. I plan on keeping the headlamp rims and the grille chrome. Not correctly painting them over. Plus I'll be adding the second taillight. It's my understanding the Revell kit does include the extra taillight if one wants to use it. 

Yes, the Revell kit has the extra taillight, plus two mirrors. I hadn't included the mirror on my build before, but decided to dress it a bit by adding the driver side mirror. The correct position for it to replicate the factory approved accessory sold on dealers, is on the cowl trim, and not on the door, or above the cowl trim. 

 

1 hour ago, Bob Ellis said:

So which kit is better Revell or AMT. Also, AMT needs more work to be an accurate '39 despite what the sedan kit says.

Since both kits depict a '40 Ford, the more accurate is the AMT kit. It lacks the fine detail the new tool Revell has, but at least the interior is correct. The Revell kit is a '40 Standard, with a '40 deluxe Convertible interior. I don't think the inaccuracy of the AMT Tudor with the optional '39 parts is a big deal, as building it as a '40 gives you a correct '40. Anyway, if you really want a '39, the main parts are there. You will have to scratchbuilt a dash, change the wipers, do some work on the wheels and on the upholstery, and bumpers. I guess that's why AMT didn't really made a full 39.

43 minutes ago, TooOld said:

Both look very well done but the AMT wins hands down . 

That's my opinion too!!

 

26 minutes ago, espo said:

These are both outstanding builds and show the differences between Revell and AMT. What I have always wondered and never got around to doing was to use the AMT Sedan fenders from the kit that offered the option of building a '39 or a '40 sedan and build a '39 Deluxe coupe out of the AMT '40 Deluxe Coupe kit.

Some scratchbuilding will be necessary to build a correct '39 Deluxe, but the main parts are all there. As a note, you won't be sacrificing a '40 Tudor to build your '39, as the Deluxe Coupe fenders will fit perfect the Tudor body, that can still be built as a Deluxe '40 Tudor.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Lovefordgalaxie

[unclescott58]

Guess what came in the mail today? From Model Mountain I got both the Revell 40 Ford Standard Coupe (kit 2387). And the Monogram ProModeler '40 Ford Convertible (kit 5961). A quick look in the boxes, and everything looks complete and okay. They were both factory sealed kit, so I expected they would be. The only thing I'm unhappy with is the style of box the Convertible came in. It's one of those cheap donut style boxes Revell/Monogram toyed around with back around the year 2000. Those boxes were just plain junk.

The other thing that's happening on the '40 Ford model front, is my Lindberg '40 Ford Deluxe Coupe is in the basement with it's first coat of paint for it's body parts. The engine, chassis, and interior are already done, and just waiting for the body. The complete kit should be done before the end of week. You know in that wonderful comparison Tulio did between the AMT and Revell coupes, I wish he would have included a built up Lindberg kit too. He has done a comparison else where here showing an unbuilt Lindberg vs the AMT kit. And I don't know if he has a built up Lindberg '40 Ford coupe or not? But, if he does, it would be fun to see it side by side with both the AMT and Revell kits.

And Tulio, you didn't really answer my question about the second taillight for the Revell coupe kit. Yes, I know the Revell kit comes with two taillights if you want to use them. But, was the second taillight an option for the '40 Ford Standards? I assume it was. For it was on earlier 1930's Fords. But, I'm not 100% sure about 1940. I'm only 99.99% sure it was. 

[aurfalien]

Hi,

I'm not familiar with either but all in all they are built up beautifully!

Wow, just soo nice.

 

[Phildaupho]

Very interesting. I liked the AMT kits as a kid but just assumed the newer Revell kits would be better in all ways. I do have a conversion of the Revell  Coupe to Deluxe configuration but it will be a street-rod so some of the issues will not be a factor. Thanks for doing this.

[Lovefordgalaxie]

1 hour ago, unclescott58 said:

Guess what came in the mail today? From Model Mountain I got both the Revell 40 Ford Standard Coupe (kit 2387). And the Monogram ProModeler '40 Ford Convertible (kit 5961). A quick look in the boxes, and everything looks complete and okay. They were both factory sealed kit, so I expected they would be. The only thing I'm unhappy with is the style of box the Convertible came in. It's one of those cheap donut style boxes Revell/Monogram toyed around with back around the year 2000. Those boxes were just plain junk.

The other thing that's happening on the '40 Ford model front, is my Lindberg '40 Ford Deluxe Coupe is in the basement with it's first coat of paint for it's body parts. The engine, chassis, and interior are already done, and just waiting for the body. The complete kit should be done before the end of week. You know in that wonderful comparison Tulio did between the AMT and Revell coupes, I wish he would have included a built up Lindberg kit too. He has done a comparison else where here showing an unbuilt Lindberg vs the AMT kit. And I don't know if he has a built up Lindberg '40 Ford coupe or not? But, if he does, it would be fun to see it side by side with both the AMT and Revell kits.

And Tulio, you didn't really answer my question about the second taillight for the Revell coupe kit. Yes, I know the Revell kit comes with two taillights if you want to use them. But, was the second taillight an option for the '40 Ford Standards? I assume it was. For it was on earlier 1930's Fords. But, I'm not 100% sure about 1940. I'm only 99.99% sure it was. 

No, I never built the Lindberd '40. I used the fenders to build a junker '40, and used the chrome to restore a very old AMT. The rest is in my parts box. Still have the engine, the frame, and the body. 

The right side taillight was not a factory option on the '40 Ford, as it was not an option chrome headlight trim, or chrome grille. The right side taillight was a dealer installed accessory. Two states required two tail lights in 1940; Washington and Missouri. Due to this two state requirement the Early Ford V-8 club allows one OR two tail lights on the Standard '40, so, for all that matters, you can have one or two, and the car will be correct. 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Lovefordgalaxie

[Lovefordgalaxie]

1 hour ago, aurfalien said:

Hi,

I'm not familiar with either but all in all they are built up beautifully!

Wow, just soo nice.

 

Thanks!!

 

48 minutes ago, Phildaupho said:

Very interesting. I liked the AMT kits as a kid but just assumed the newer Revell kits would be better in all ways. I do have a conversion of the Revell  Coupe to Deluxe configuration but it will be a street-rod so some of the issues will not be a factor. Thanks for doing this.

Thanks. Yes being a rod, factory correct is of no importance. 

[unclescott58]

Another thought. MPC also made a 1/25th scale '40 Ford coupe snap kit. I believe in its last incarnation it was offered as police car? One time I know it was offered as a fire chiefs car. I also believe at one time it was offered as something fairly close to stock? Maybe a mild custom? What do people know about this kit? How does it compare to the other 1/25th scale '40 Ford coupe kits? Is the kit any good, and worth searching out? 

Interesting how popular the '40 Ford coupe is, to get 4 different manufacturers to make 4 similar kits in the same scale. I know it's always been a popular and good looking car. It never dawned on me how popular, until I realize how many kits there are of the car. And go on line and see how many other '40 Ford coupes out there in other scales. Wow! 

[ChrisBcritter]

Something I'm noticing is that the Revell kit appears larger than the AMT kit.

Tulio, how long is the wheelbase on each one?

[Eric Macleod]

I really enjoy building sets of models but have never been able to put together anything of the quality of what I see here. This is an absolutely fabulous pair of models. This posting helped me personally as I had sort of dismissed the notion of using the AMT '40 Ford kit to build a resin '40 Woody I have had around for a while. Clearly, the AMT kit as a base is a good starting point. Thanks for your insightful comments.

[jeff f]

Thank you Tulio for sharing your very nice builds . I spent a fair amount of time on Google when I did my 40 standard , and say the gauge decal mistake . 

Has anyone " Tim " ever talked to Revell about their errors . Such as Bronco wheels & hubcaps and so on . I am a big Revell supporter for all of the NEW subjects . But they must employ someone who's never seen a car . My two cents .

Jeff .

[Lovefordgalaxie]

10 hours ago, ChrisBcritter said:

Something I'm noticing is that the Revell kit appears larger than the AMT kit.

Tulio, how long is the wheelbase on each one?

It's just the picture effect Chris. In the scale factor, both did the work very alike. 

The Revell Coupe has 11,5 cm of wheelbase, and 19,5 cm overall. 

The AMT Coupe has 11,4 cm of wheelbase, and 19,5 cm overall.

Of course, it's not an absolute result, as if one glues the axles a bit forward or rearward, some variations can happen, say 0,5 mm more or 0,5 mm less, specially in the case of the overall dimension on the Revell kit, as the bumper brackets are separate from the frame, but like I said, both cars are the same size to the naked eye.

3 hours ago, Eric Macleod said:

I really enjoy building sets of models but have never been able to put together anything of the quality of what I see here. This is an absolutely fabulous pair of models. This posting helped me personally as I had sort of dismissed the notion of using the AMT '40 Ford kit to build a resin '40 Woody I have had around for a while. Clearly, the AMT kit as a base is a good starting point. Thanks for your insightful comments.

Glad to have being of some help. That was the idea behind comparing the two. 

 

1 hour ago, jeff f said:

Thank you Tulio for sharing your very nice builds . I spent a fair amount of time on Google when I did my 40 standard , and say the gauge decal mistake . 

Has anyone " Tim " ever talked to Revell about their errors . Such as Bronco wheels & hubcaps and so on . I am a big Revell supporter for all of the NEW subjects . But they must employ someone who's never seen a car . My two cents .

Jeff .

Personally, I think Revell just modified the Convertible interior tooling to fit the coupe, leaving the upholstery alone. Looks like nobody had noticed that before. The floor pan has a copyright notice from 2000, so it's part of the Club Convertible kit. I just bought one online, and really want to see if any modification was really done to the interior to call it a Coupe.

[unclescott58]

Again, Tulio I hope you someday build the 1/25th scale Lindberg kit. It builds out better than you might expect. And I'd like to see what you could do with it. Also, what's your thoughts on the MPC '40 Ford Snap Kit. Looking at pictures online, I'm tempted to buy one. Though I would have build it with out the fire chief equipment. Filling in holes where the top lights, spot lights, and sirens go. I'd also leave off the side pipes.